|
Poster:
|
csb99 |
Date:
|
May 15, 2007 06:13:02am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: watermarks |
A response , particularly to gabe@archive.org . I am not in the slightest concerned with what the watermark says . If it said "scanned for archive.org " I would find it no less unpleasant . If the point of a text is just to " absorb the knowledge of a given text " then a watermark is insignificant : if the point is the appearance of the text , like the scan of the 1485 Jenson De Citivate Dei , it is defacement . This book is only of interest for its appearance : if someone really intended to read it doubtless there are better scholarly texts or translations much easier to read . If someone underlined or used a highlighter on that I would think it criminal . "Ohhh by the by......there's a reason the watermark is there and it's so that these materials can be kept open and free " . Most books here do not have this watermark , Microsoft has sponsored scanning for over a year without implementing this policy : you are saying then , all books scanned after the middle of April 2007 and sponsored by Microsoft have to have a watermark to be open and free . I really would like this to be explained . The reasoning behind this one is perfectly opaque to me .
TVNews
OpenLibrary